In the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision, a really narrowly focused Supreme Court decision on a very narrow issue (whether a privately owned company with strong religious convictions must pay for abortifacients for employees), open hatred for the Catholic Church has once again broken out. The left’s reaction to the decision, about which they have almost constantly proven themselves utterly ignorant, has been unhinged and divorced from reality, to say the least. But much of the vitriol has been reserved for the fact that the five Catholic justices who determined that forcing a private business with strong religious convictions to commit a gravely and objectively immoral act (the killing of a perfect innocent) is contrary to the same Religious Freedom Restoration Act sponsored by extreme liberal Ted Kennedy and supported by such leftist stalwarts as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. That is to say, what we are seeing is not reasoned discourse or a principled stand, but outright bigotry. Even by katholycs against Catholics.

But, of course, the left has generally been an inveterate enemy of the Faith since the left came into being at the end of the 18th century. No surprise there. We’re simply seeing actions from the left in this country “catch up” to how it has dealt with the Church in most of the rest of the world for decades. That is, harboring an open and unabashed hatred for the Church and the God She represents.

However, when I read this article decrying the new anti-Catholic bigotry, which is sure to only increase, what most troubled me was the idea that it would be utterly ridiculous to think that a Catholic Supreme Court justice, politician, or bureaucrat might actually use the Faith to guide their decisions as “public servants.” So, even among the most conservative in this country, we are told that the real “god” Catholics in public service must bow to is the US Constitution, and not Jesus Christ.

Nobody would actually say that Catholic justices are using the court to promote the Vatican’s agenda in America. That would be absurd, right? [See what I mean. We can thank JFK and the “spirit of Vatican II” for convincing almost all Americans that Catholicism is just another flavor of Christianity, equivalent in every respect to Methodism, the Baptists, etc] That was all settled by JFK in 1960.[As I said! What he settled was to sell out perennial Church Doctrine and very possibly his own soul in favor of political aggrandizement] Well, apparently not…….

The tolerant Huffington Post, in their article,“The Uncomfortable Question: Should we have Six Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court?” led the way. The article is careful to be clear that “even by raising the question one exposes oneself to a charge of bigotry.” So I would like to make it very clear. If you think Catholics are less likely to serve the public interest than any other group of people, you are an intolerant bigot.[I have a different definition of an intolerant bigot. If you think that by being a faithful Catholic and using Catholic moral and social doctrine to guide your implementation of public policy you are less likely to serve the public interest, you are an intolerant bigot and very far from Christ] You aren’t just asking the question, you are giving credence to an anti-Catholic bias as old as any in this country. And you should stop it. [The author, viz a viz the left, is right. However, he is exercising his own bias by proclaiming adherence to Catholic Doctrine as a matter of public policy to be ludicrous]

Daily Kos was less coy. In their article, “Catholic Appointees Betray their Oath,” an author named MugWumpBlues launched into a vitriolic anti-Catholic diatribe that is as disgusting as it is un-factual[anti-factual?] and incoherent. The article begins: “They called themselves Puritans because they wanted to purify the Christian Church from the anathema of the Catholics.[No, they rejected even the appearance of Catholicism in High Anglican practice. The puritans also quickly fell into squabbling sects and formed the basis for basically all leftist “Christian” sects today, from the congregationalists to the unitarians] The bright robes, the high ceilings, all swindler’s tricks to mulct the masses.” Setting aside the fact that the Puritans were escaping the Anglican, not the Catholic, church, and the malicious assertion that Catholicism is a “swindler’s trick,” the Daily Kos may be credited with the finally asserting the true Progressive position.

The anonymous author goes on to say, “Rational people have long understood that the superstitious—call it religion if you want to be polite but superstitious they are—are selfish, gullible and easily manipulated.”[Please. Physician, heal thyself. There is no one more gullible nor more susceptible to unreasoning, pressure-focused groupthink than a sexular pagan leftist. How many leftists would be willing to die for their beliefs? How many would be willing to be even moderately inconvenienced? Dang few. Yes, there are professional protesters on the left, but they generally make quite comfortable livings being…professional leftists. How many are willing to die for their beliefs, as so many Catholics have? And yet Catholics are selfish and gullible? The rank ignorance of the modern left with regard to history and sociology just staggers me at times] Mother Jones, Huffington Post, and Daily Kos are all pointing in one direction. It is important to understand what they are directing us towards. Reason, the rational, data, and facts and figures and graphs and info-graphics and “10 reasons you are better than everyone else.” These are the true ways to know right from wrong. And if you disagree, if you believe silly superstitions such as centuries-old religious beliefs, you are unfit to serve the people.

The Progressive message is clear. Only atheists should govern. [And that’s very true. But the author’s own conceit is that Catholics should only be allowed to govern if they govern as fully secular liberals, because all politics that reject the Church’s foundational and lead role are radically novel and left wing, from the classical perspective of Christendom. So, we see here in microcosm that the difference between a modern conservative and liberal in this country is simply one of degree, not of kind. This outlook is radically opposed to the traditional political-cultural mores of Christendom]

……The Progressives who criticize the Catholics on the bench for imposing Papish doctrine on our nation ought to look to the plank in their own planks…….[As I hope to post tomorrow, God willing, will provide some compelling evidence that progressives are among the most fervently religious people in the world at present. It is simply that their religion is one of new paganism, worshiping perversion, and hating the Christian God.]

[And now for the clincher]…….The attack on Catholicism from the Left on this story is a cheap and easy shot. It’s a placeholder for actual discussion.[It’s naked tribalism and giving leftists their cherished sense of superiority. It’s the kind of tribalism and hatred of others that Lenin used to seize power and inflict the most perverse and evil form of government the world has ever known] We all know that none of these outlets would talk about Judaism or Islam in similar terms.[Quite true. Christianity, and in particular Catholicism, is the only bigotry approved by the self-anointed leftist cultural elite today]I am a Catholic, I go to church, I was married in the church, I raise my son in the church. I believe its teachings are exclusively true, just as Jews and Muslims and Baptists do.[Hmm…..] I don’t demand that anyone agree with me. Well maybe my son, for now.[For now?!!?] But the idea that being Catholic should bar anyone from public service, or call into question their ethics on that basis alone, is something I never thought I would see in this country. [Dude, where have you been? Anyone paying attention for the past few decades could see this freight train of hate bearing down on the Church with increasing speed and ferocity. That train waves the American flag and toots Yankee Doodle Dandy from its horn.]

————-End Quote————

Long post. Sorry about that. I try to keep them short, but there is just so much to refute and explain. I feel sorry for the author. He has obviously been thoroughly inculcated in the post-conciliar “spirit” of indifferentism and has no conception of the Social Reign of Jesus Christ the King or the implications of that reign for ALL Catholics, but especially those in public life. I’m sure he means well. I’m sure doesn’t mean to make a false god out of the Constitution, but that is essentially what he is demanding when he ridicules the concept of Catholics implementing the social and moral Doctrine of the Faith as public policy. It is a thoroughly Americanist point of view, and I refer to the condemned heresy of Americanism.There is no way to say it but this: from an orthodox/traditional Catholic standpoint, the US Constitution is a profoundly disordered, dangerous, and even immoral document. Any government, especially one derived from that great Catholic fusion of religion and state, Christendom, not founded explicitly on Jesus Christ as its true, final, and visible Head is disordered. Any government which embraces so-called “religious freedom,” which is no different than making agnosticism the official state religion, is spiritually dangerous. And any government, no matter the supposed sanctity of its founding document, which embraces such evils as divorce on demand, abortion, contraception, the obliteration of marriage, the constant attack on the family, etc., is immoral.The piece above is an unintentional but very helpful illustration of the great divide between conservative adherents to the modern, religion-crushing liberal superstate, and orthodox/faithful/traditional Catholics. Discussion of that divide, and the derangement of the “American experiment” from the Catholic ideal, forms the basis of Christopher Ferrara’s great Liberty: The God That Failed. It also highlights the difference between your average conservativish post-conciliar Catholic and those who cling to the constant belief and practice of the Faith. The differences are, quite frankly, enormous.Almost like an entirely different religion. But who am I to judge?On a related note, the Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled that a Catholic priest must break the seal of the confessional or face possible fines and jail time in an alleged sex-abuse case. The priest was not involved in the abuse, the claimants feel he did not act vigorously enough to stop alleged ongoing abuse by a now deceased man. Of course, “A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae [by the commission of the act] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.” But the Louisiana Supreme Court, from a state with a great Catholic heritage, doesn’t care about the state of a man’s soul, or his eternal damnation, all they care about is that they get the evidence they demand.We’ll see how this plays out. I pray the priest remains strong and upholds the Catholic law.

The very good Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam has a recent post regarding the lost art of Christian shunning. This is not snubbing because we don’t like someone, or because they aren’t in our tribe, but because of ongoing persistent immorality that simply cannot be abided without giving scandal or even seeming to endorse the sin.

Shunning/stigmatization and other forms of negative social reinforcement once played a huge role in maintaining social mores and cultural standards. That began to fall apart as the 20th century advanced and really imploded after the diabolical decade of the 1960s. But simply because most in the Church, including in the hierarchy, would be aghast at not “welcoming all” (save for the orthodox, of course!) with the most non-judgmental unjudging “who am I to judge” attitude possible, that doesn’t mean shunning is not an important and necessary Catholic practice exceedingly well supported by Scripture and Tradition, and Boniface thoroughly establishes.

Because the post is long, I will give a brief synopsis of the proofs from Scripture that Boniface cites in support of shunning. After each proof, he explains in some depth how it relates to the practice of shunning. The proofs include:

Matt X:12-15 (Jesus directs Disciples to flee those houses and towns that refuse to accept the Gospel)

I Cor V:9-13 (St. Paul directs Corinthians not to associate with public sinners)

II John I:7-11 (St. John speaks of fleeing from those who reject Church Doctrine. Boniface reinforces St. John by noting that we really must avoid those who claim to be Catholic but who, for instance, are lost in sins of sodomy.)

Now, there are many caveats for how to apply shunning, so make sure to read Boniface’s entire post. If we don’t know if someone may simply be ignorant of their sin, or struggling to overcome a persistent sin, we should not shun that individual, for instance. We are talking more about how to approach unrepentant and obstinate sinners, and perhaps even more in this time of mass apostasy, unrepentant heretics, who make up most of the self-professed Catholic population today.

I did want to excerpt Boniface’s conclusion, and add my own emphasis and comments:

So what sorts of practical conclusions can we draw here?

First, there are appropriate situations for actively shunning the company of other people. Who? According to the New Testament, other Christians who are obstinately living in sin, especially sexual immorality, as well as heretics. We do not go out of our way to avoid the sinners of the world – those folks are targets for conversion and anyhow its impossible to get away from them ultimately. But we do expect a certain degree of behavior and fidelity “on the inside” of the Church, to use St. Paul’s language. Those Christians who obstinately refuse to maintain it ought to be avoided. What sorts of people in your life fit this description? [Well, almost my entire family is non-Catholic and rejects whole swaths of Catholic Doctrine. But I obviously won’t be cutting them out of my life, because they are still candidates for proselytizing and don’t often divulge their rejection of doctrine. But there are others I know, who have fallen into lifestyles of the gravest immorality, which I probably should shun. This matter of shunning is a judgment call, a matter of balancing our love for God and the Truth He has revealed through His Church, and Christ’s second commandment, to love our neighbor as ourselves. It depends much on the closeness of the relationship, the degree of error, immorality, culpability, and scandal involved (for instance, my family was born protestant, they did not consciously choose that religion), discernment, and always consideration of true charity. In many cases, maintaining contact with a soul lost in grievous sin may only confirm them in that sin and give scandal, whereas in other cases there may be grounds for continued contact (especially in the case, say, of an addiction, where the behavior may be compulsive and the person is struggling to overcome the ingrained habit of sin). The more distant the relationship and the greater the sin, the application of shunning should increase, in my estimation]

Second, that this shunning is physical and total – refusal to associate with, eat with, or even greet these people. How would this look in your life were it put into practice? [I can play it out with my gomorrist co-worker and former close friend pretty clearly (she hasn’t always been thus). How about my sodomite next door neighbors, who are sexular pagans, is that a case for just shunning, being coolly polite, or must we make an attempt at fraternal correction, even given the huge risks involved (there is a substantial possibility of backlash)? I’ve wavered between the first and the second, these guys seem extremely unlikely candidates for conversion, even though one is Hispanic and thus probably a baptized Catholic]

Third, that refusal to do so in fact makes us guilty of these people’s sins. It is not an act of Christian charity to invite your lesbian niece and her girlfriend over for Christmas dinner while not saying anything to them about their sin. In fact, to do so would make you guilty of sharing in their sin. Examine your conscience here. [These are very tough moral situations. It is so much easier to just go along to get along. It makes me think I probably need to ramp up my efforts at conversion with some family members. But, again, in the case of my family, we are talking not about error deliberately chosen, or the Church deliberately rejected, but being born and raised in a protestant ethos. So there is not as much culpability there. In situations where family members have deliberately left the Church and resisted reversion efforts for years, I think at some point one may have to cut them off. This can only really be assessed on a case by case basis.]

Fourth, in all these cases, Christ, St. Paul and St. John are all more interested in preserving the integrity and sanctity of the faithful believer than worrying about the feelings of the obstinate sinner being shunned. So should we. [Great point. One of the biggest problems with newchurch is an almost obsessive concern with people’s feelings over doctrinal integrity/Truth. Almost any truth will be sacrificed on the altar of people’s feelings. Unless those people are orthodox/traditional Catholics, then to hell with them. It’s almost like they are telling us they don’t want us in their new religion! Ya think?!?]

Fifth, we need to keep this teaching in proper perspective. After a person repents, we are to welcome them back joyfully (cf. Luke 15:7, 2 Cor. 2:6-11, Luke 15:22-24). Furthermore, this cannot be used as an excuse to avoid evangelism. As we said above, this teaching clearly applies to those called by the name of Christ, not unbelievers in need of Christ. [Which sort of heightens the divide between how we approach those who have never been Catholic, and those who have definitively departed or those who claim to be Catholic but are lost in error or grave sin]

Finally, it is not arrogant judgmentalism or Pharisaism. St. Paul himself affirms that it is our business to judge those “on the inside.” Still, such judgments should be made in humility, not out of a sense of superiority. [And that is a hugely tricky business in and of itself. We don’t want to become busybodies chastising every young girl who wears a skirt 4 inches too short to Mass, or some mom whose child bothers us with his crying during the Consecration. We do have priests for a reason. There is a time and a place and a way to go about everything. Charity must guide all. And when in doubt, it is probably best to say and do nothing but pray. But when the sin is obvious and we feel bound by conscience to act, yes, by all means, we must strive to use as much tact and decorum as possible in our correction. If the sinner fails to respond, that is when shunning would come into play.]

So do not feel guilty that you did not invite your lesbian niece and her girlfriend to the family party. Put away your nagging questions about whether you ought to attend the third marriage of your Uncle Gary. You are doing the correct thing by shunning these people. To do otherwise is to affirm their evil deeds and partake in them. There is a place for shunning in Catholicism, and if we weren’t so paralyzed by seeming judgmental or harsh, we would realize it. [I have to agree. We also have to keep in mind different vocations and spiritualities. Some people are more inward and contemplative, others feel called to be more active and extroverted in their practice of the faith. Maybe even combative, at times. There have been many Saints of both types. For some folks, the best approach may be quiet avoidance and interior prayer, for others, they may feel compelled to try to correct and engage with the sinner. At some point we all have to realize that someone simply refuses to hear and accept the Truth, and at that point we have to cut them out of our lives, always keeping them in our prayers.]

“So shall you purge the evil from your midst.” ~Deut. 17:7

————-End Quote————–

Another top-notch topic from Boniface, thoughtfully presented and well-supported. Too bad he lives in Michigan, so I’ll probably never meet him face to face! But I surely do appreciate his work. I pray you find the above discussion useful, too! Again, you should really read the whole post. I only excerpted maybe 1/4 of it. There is much more explication in his post.

Yesterday I posted a prayer my wife recommended to me. It was a Thirty Day Novena to the Blessed Virgin Mary in Honor of the Sacred Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It was a pretty long prayer, but unfortunately, not long enough. My wife inadvertently skipped a page when typing it up!

So, below, find the corrected, complete version of the prayer taken from the pre-conciliar Catholic book of spirituality, Key of Heaven. I will say, this prayer is much more powerful now that I see it complete. I thought it was good yesterday, but now it is fantastic. It is long, but very much worth your time, in my estimation (I am going to delete the previous, incorrect post):

(By the devout recital of this prayer during thirty days, we may firmly hope to obtain our lawful request. It is particularly recommended as a proper devotion for every day in Lent, and all the Fridays throughout the year.)

Ever glorious and blessed Mary, Queen of virgins, Mother of mercy, hope and comfort of all dejected and desolate souls, through that sword of sorrow, which pierced thy tender heart whilst thine only Son, Christ Jesus, our Lord, suffered death and ignominy on the cross; through that filial tenderness and pure love He had for thee, grieving in thy grief, whilst from His cross He recommended thee to the care and protection of His disciple St. John: take pity, I beseech thee, on my poverty and necessities; have compassion on my anxieties and cares; assist and comfort me in all my infirmities and miseries, of what kind soever. Thou art the Mother of mercies, the sweet Consolatrix [oh, I really like that word!] and only refuge of the needy and the orphan, of the desolate and afflicted.

Cast therefore an eye of pity on a miserable, forlorn child of Eve, and hear my prayer. For since, in just punishment of my sins, I find myself encompassed by a multitude of evils, and oppressed with much anguish of spirit, whither can I fly for more secure shelter, O Mother of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, than under the wings of thy maternal protection. Attend then, I beseech thee, with an ear of pity and compassion, to my most humble and earnest request.

I ask it through the infinite mercy of thy dear Son; through that love and condescension wherewith He embraced our nature, when, in compliance with thy divine will, thou gavest thy consent, and whom, after the expiration of nine months, thou didst bring forth from the chaste enclosure of thy womb, to visit this world, and bless it with His presence.

I ask it through that anguish of mind wherewith thy beloved Son our dear Savior, was overwhelmed on Mount Olivet when He besought His eternal Father to remove from Him, if possible, the bitter chalice of His future passion.

I ask it through the threefold repetition of His prayers in the garden, from whence afterwards, with dolorous steps and mournful tears, thou didst accompany Him to the doleful theatre of His death and sufferings.

I ask it through the weals and sores of His virginal flesh, occasioned by the cords wherewith He was bound and by the whips wherewith He was scourged.

I ask it through the scoffs and ignominies by which he was insulted, through the false accusations and unjust sentence by which He was condemned to death, and which He bore with heavenly patience.

I ask it through His bitter tears and bloody sweat; through His silence and resignation, His sadness and grief of heart.

I ask it through the blood, which trickled from His sacred head when struck with a reed and pierced with the crown of thorns.

I ask it through the excruciating torments He suffered, when His hands and feet were fastened with gross nails to the tree of the cross.

I ask it through His vehement thirst, and the bitter potion of vinegar and gall.

I ask it through His dereliction on the cross when He exclaimed: “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”

I ask it through His mercy extended to the good thief, and through His recommending His precious soul and spirit into the hands of His eternal Father before He expired, saying: “It is consummated.”

I ask it through the blood mixed with water, which issued from His sacred side when pierced with a lance, and whence a flood of grace and mercy has flowed to us.

I ask it through His immaculate life, His bitter passion, and ignominious death on the cross, at which nature itself was thrown into convulsions, by the bursting of rocks, the rending of the veil of the temple, the earthquake and the darkness of the sun and moon.

I ask it through His descent into hell where He comforted the Saints of the old law with His presence, and led captivity captive.

I ask it through His glorious victory over death, when He arose again to life, and through the joy which His appearance for forty days after gave thee, His blessed Mother, His Apostles and Disciples, and when in their presence, He miraculously ascended into heaven.

I ask it through the grace of the Holy Spirit, infused into the hearts of His Disciples, when He descended upon them in the form of fiery tongues, and by which they were inspired with zeal in the conversion of the world, when they went to preach the gospel.

I ask it through the awful appearance of thy Son at the last dreadful day, when He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I ask it through the compassion He bore thee in this life, and the ineffable joy thou didst feel at thine assumption into heaven, where thou art eternally absorbed in the sweet contemplation of His divine perfections. O glorious and ever blessed Virgin, comfort the heart of thy supplicant, by obtaining for me…

(Here mention or reflect on your request, under the reservation of its being agreeable to the will of God, who sees whether it will contribute to your spiritual good.)

And as I am persuaded my divine Savior doth honor thee as His beloved Mother, to whom He refuses nothing, because thou askest nothing contrary to His honor, so let me speedily experience the efficacy of thy powerful intercession, according to the tenderness of thy maternal affection, and His filial loving heart, who mercifully granteth the request and complieth with the desires of those that love and fear Him.

Wherefore, O most blessed Virgin, beside the object of my present petition and whatever else I may stand in need of, obtain for me also of thy dear Son, our Lord and our God, a lively faith, firm hope, perfect charity, true contrition of heart, unfeigned tears of compunction, sincere confession, condign satisfaction abstinence from sin, love of God and my neighbor, contempt of the world, patience to suffer affronts and ignominies, nay even, if necessary, an opprobrious death itself, for love of thy Son, our Savior Jesus Christ. Obtain likewise for me, O sacred Mother of God perseverance in all good works, performance of good resolutions, mortification of self-will, a pious conversation through life, and, at my last moments, a strong and sincere repentance, accompanied by such a lively, attentive presence of mind, as may enable me to receive the last Sacraments of the Church worthily, and die in thy friendship and favor. Lastly obtain through thy Son, I beseech thee, for the souls of my parents, brethren, relatives and benefactors, both living and dead, life everlasting from only Giver of each good and perfect gift, the Lord God almighty: to whom be all power, now and forever. Amen.

————–End Quote————-

So much Grace will flow from offering this prayer! Even if you do a Friday only Novena (9 Fridays in a row), or weekly, however, this prayer should bring great spiritual fruit!

I plainly remember being shown “educational” films in school, all pretty much dating from the 70s, which not just predicted, but declared an immutable scientific fact, that not just the United States, but the entire world, would “run out of oil” by the year 2000 or so. Those same films, with direct testimony from leading scienticians of the day, proclaimed the US oil industry to be in terminal and irreversible decline, and that US oil production would drop to insignificance by the 1990s.

More recently, we had the “peak oil” scare of 2008, when there were many experts – self anointed if you ask me – predicting that oil production had reached its ultimate peak and that worldwide decline and quick exhaustion of resources was, once again, an immutable scientific fact. But today worldwide oil production is still increasing, and price remains relatively high only because some producers are forcing it to stay there by keeping their production static.

It seems a fact of life that every time there is some unexpected price increase in oil, folks come out of the woodwork claiming oil/natural gas are finished. But history suggests differently.

For the first time in 40 years, the United States leads the world in crude oil production. In a report issued yesterdayby Bank of America Corp., “U.S. production of crude oil, along with liquids separated from natural gas, surpassed all other countries this year with daily output exceeding 11 million barrels in the first quarter.”

“The U.S. increase in supply is a very meaningful chunk of oil,” Francisco Blanch, the bank’s head of commodities research, said by phone from New York. “The shale boom is playing a key role in the U.S. recovery. If the U.S. didn’t have this energy supply, prices at the pump would be completely unaffordable.”

Oil extraction is soaring at shale formations in Texas and North Dakota as companies split rocks using high-pressure liquid, a process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The surge in supply combined with restrictions on exporting crude is curbing the price of West Texas Intermediate, America’s oil benchmark. The U.S., the world’s largest oil consumer, still imported an average of 7.5 million barrels a day of crude in April, according to the Department of Energy’s statistical arm……..

…….North America is poised to become the “New Middle East” in oil production, with a projected doubling of output from Mexico, the US, and Canada to exceed 20 million bbl a day by 2020. Some analysts believe that to be an underestimate. Canada’s tar sands revolution, the US shale boom, and the deregulation of the Mexican oil industry that will allow foreign companies access to some of the biggest untapped oil fields left in the world, promises to make North America a hub of energy production for the coming decades.

Yeah, we’ll see if that Mexican deregulation really happens. Mexico nearly always manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Nevertheless, from the increase of domestic production (unless stopped by a stupid, egregious, draconian act of the Obama administration) and large resources available from nearby and friendly Canada, the US could be nearly totally independent of Mideast oil within a few years. Which will hopefully prevent us from fighting anymore stupid wars in that region, further stirring up an already deranged muslim populace.

And remember when presented with ostensible “consensus” or meaningless “97%” figures about gerbil worming how often our leading scientists have been not just wrong, but danged fools in the past. The video below does not quite give the kinds of juicy quotes I recall from my youth about the near-term exhaustion of the world’s oil supply (which is a fallacy, anyway – we’ll never “run out of oil,” it will simply become too rare and expensive to continue mass use), but it gives a pretty good sense of the panic that overtook the country after the first price shock of 1973. But much of the suffering that occurred then was due to really dumb, statist policies enacted by Nixon, like price controls, rather than due to some truly inescapable “shortage:”

Will oil and natural gas eventually be substituted as the prime energy sources of mankind? Eventually, yes, but probably not for another century or two. They remain by far the most abundant, cleanest, easiest to transport and use fuels available. There are some cheaper sources like coal (of which I am a big supporter), but the environmental perceptions (if not the reality) regarding coal use are driving this massive resource from the picture, in spite of the fact that coal is the most abundant energy resource in the US.

None of the above is to say that alternative resources should not be explored. But we shouldn’t get our hopes up for the immediate future for most of these.

This post guest blogged by Rex Tillerson and brought to you by ExxonMobil Corporation.